Murray, perhaps worth being aware that lloyd's focus is more technical and tripod based than sean's. Probably appeal to different markets. Sean's best articled, imho, have been aboit making pivtures rather than gear reviews, but they seem to have slowed down at the moment.

- the m lenses don't always work that well on these cameras. Leica had to work hard to get to the m9, and there are still residual red edge issues with some zeiss wide angles.

The M9 is a full-frame camera and these issues are much smaller on half-frame cameras. And word is that the Nex 5 sensor is quite exempt of these artifacts. Apparently, the design of the sensor is different, but Sony won't say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Shimwell

You could buy a M4/3 and a clip on optical viewfinder. The Panasonic 1.7/20 is supposed ot be a cracking lens that would meet your needs. Add the voigt 0.95/25 (manual focus only) and you'd be about there.

I don't see the point in having the 20mm and 25mm, the angle of view is very similar. I would also like to point out that Sony has an optical viewfinder for the Nex 3 or 5 and the 16mm and that these optical viewfinder are not always very convenient: they make the camera quite a lot more bulky in a bag and you don't get any info on what the camera is doing.

The M9 is a full-frame camera and these issues are much smaller on half-frame cameras. And word is that the Nex 5 sensor is quite exempt of these artifacts. Apparently, the design of the sensor is different, but Sony won't say.

I don't see the point in having the 20mm and 25mm, the angle of view is very similar. I would also like to point out that Sony has an optical viewfinder for the Nex 3 or 5 and the 16mm and that these optical viewfinder are not always very convenient: they make the camera quite a lot more bulky in a bag and you don't get any info on what the camera is doing.

Hi Jerome,

Yes, the issues are less problematic on half frame cameras than full frame, but there is a lot of anecdotal comment on fora that people are not getting a step up in 'image quality' from M lenses compared to the system lenses. Plus, you then have to deal with manual focus on a body that is fundamentally designed for autofocus.

I agree that 20 and 25 are quite close, but I use both 35 and 50 (eq 17 and 25) quite distinctly. I supect that 17 to 20 is fairly manageable swap. Also, I know Fahim uses 28 on his M8, which is about half way between 17 and 20 on the M4/3s bodies. (and having said that, perhaps a 33 would be a better replacement for his 50!)

there is a lot of anecdotal comment on fora that people are not getting a step up in 'image quality' from M lenses compared to the system lenses. Plus, you then have to deal with manual focus on a body that is fundamentally designed for autofocus.

They don't get a big step up in quality because the system lenses are not that bad...

About manual focus: the Nex series has introduced a function called "peaking" which really changes the way one focuses on these cameras. It makes manual focus much, much easier. Since the function has been standard on video cameras for years, I expect the other manufacturers to do the same relatively soon.

Small lenses (so called "pancakes") are in magenta. Macro lenses have the letter M, lenses with Optical Stabilisation the letter S. Sony has 2 converters for the 16mm, making it into a wide-angle and fisheye primes, those are listed in grey (are they primes or not?).

It is not a new camera system, but I think that this comparison would not be complete without adding Pentax, who has a whole line of "limited" primes for their camera system. Interestingly, the focal length available are quite different (there is a glaring hole around the equivalent of the 35mm focal length).

This is more about the NEX 5N itself than primes, as I only tried one expensive Zeiss 24 mm and yes it was perfection.

I have been using the NEX 5N for the past week. I left my Canon armory at home and just had the NEX 5N with the 18-55 (X1.5 for APA-C). Marvelous freedom to compose all day with no schlepping gear. I don't think my pictures are any less useful except I did need the 24mm T/S II when shooting a model in a park and wanted the b.g. Frankly, I found that the focus was so fast and the camera so light but with just enough balance and heft, that I was very, very pleasantly surprised. After a day, my GXR, with the far superior GXR f 2.8 50mm macroi lens, did not even get into my coat pocket. It's unbeatable for macro and slow shooting but it breathes to slowly for fast-paced work. I'll now try the NEX with more primes. I did try a 24mm Zeiss, but it was a little expensive for me for just a fun trip to NY.

What this exercise tells me is that fast focus can trump almost anything else in work with people. If a prime series does that with these wonderful APS-C sensors, there will be lots of winners.

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

What this exercise tells me is that fast focus can trump almost anything else in work with people.

There is ample evidence against that: so many people pictures have been taken with the Leica M, which is not fast to focus.

I know your next answer: people prefocus on the Leica M. In that case "focus" (or lack of it) is instantaneous. But nothing precludes doing the same on the GXR: youtube example.

But you did not use that function and I would think that few users actually use prefocus on the GXR or similar cameras in the field, while many more Leica M users do so. Why the difference? Because of the ergonomics.

Todays cameras are technically excellent. The differences in quality between them is too small to be significant in the field for the overwhelming majority of pictures. What makes a camera sing is how well the controls are arranged and this is a matter of personal preference: some people are quite happy with the GXR's manual focus. The ergonomics work for them.

Todays cameras are technically excellent. The differences in quality between them is too small to be significant in the field for the overwhelming majority of pictures. What makes a camera sing is how well the controls are arranged and this is a matter of personal preference: some people are quite happy with the GXR's manual focus. The ergonomics work for them.

Jerome,

I was brought up on manual focus with the Retina IIB and a 35mm lens. I beleive it had click stops but I can't swear to that. I knew how to turn the focus and get thing sharp just be looking ahead and moving by feel. With Leica lenses, there's often a lever which gives orientation. With my Bronica, again I can focus by the position of the ring. I need to invest some effort with the GXR on manual to be fair. But for critical work I'd use the GXR over the NEX for 50mm focal length, at least for now.

One bad thing about modern lenses is the fly by wire "manual" rings. We'd be better off with actual manual controls and several turns.

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

Indeed, free-turn focus wheels lack any reference for the photographer. The same is true from menu-based systems. They can be used to prefocus, but not to focus by estimate and feel.

An interesting solution is used in the Sigma DP1/2: there is a focus wheel separate from the lens. It is not free-turn, there is a stop at infinite. Unfortunately, the angle of turn is very small between infinite and 2m.

That solution is not new, BTW. The first camera I saw it used is the Contax T2:

There have been some changes on the compact mirrorless camera market. Sigma announced two new prime lenses, a 19mm and a 30mm, both open at f/2.8 and small enough to be considered as "pancakes". The lenses are available for the NEX and µ4/3 systems, so become equivalents of:
-a 28mm and 50mm for NEX and
-a 38mm and 60mm for µ4/3.

The ∑19mm is of little interest for the µ4/3 system because of the competition of the extraordinary 20mm pancake from Panasonic, but will be a perfect 28mm equivalent for the NEX system. The two Sigma lenses are cheap and, if the MTF curves published on Sigma Japan site any indication, should be quite good.

Samsung has announced a 20mm f/2.8 pancake for their NX system (30mm equivalent) and I corrected the aperture of the 16mm (24mm equivalent) to f/2.4. I wrote f/2.8 by mistake.

Small lenses (so called "pancakes") are in magenta. Macro lenses have the letter M, lenses with Optical Stabilisation the letter S. Sony has 2 converters for the 16mm, making it into a wide-angle and fisheye primes, those are listed in grey (are they primes or not?).

Small lenses (so called "pancakes") are in magenta. Macro lenses have the letter M, lenses with Optical Stabilisation the letter S. Sony has 2 converters for the 16mm, making it into a wide-angle and fisheye primes, those are listed in grey (are they primes or not?).

Jerome,

Assuming, just for the moment, that one gets pretty much the same 8x10 pictures from µ4/3 and APS-C sized sensors, could you now bring in cost and AF. With these considerations, which camera systems can be equipped for the least outlay of cash and still have coverage of focal lengths and AF?

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

I don't understand the question. Everyone of the cited lenses is AF. They are all available in the native mount. As to cost of lenses, it really depends on what coverage one wants, what aperture is desired and whether zooms are allowed: what do you mean by "coverage of focal lengths"?. As to cost of bodies, a second hand Olympus EP-1 or NEX 3 is really cheap...

(Since you are in the USA, and because prices are a bit different depending on country, I checked on amazon.com: you can get an Olympus EP-1 or NEX 3 body for 190$ today).

I don't understand the question. Everyone of the cited lenses is AF. They are all available in the native mount. As to cost of lenses, it really depends on what coverage one wants, what aperture is desired and whether zooms are allowed: what do you mean by "coverage of focal lengths"?. As to cost of bodies, a second hand Olympus EP-1 or NEX 3 is really cheap...

(Since you are in the USA, and because prices are a bit different depending on country, I checked on amazon.com: you can get an Olympus EP-1 or NEX 3 body for 190$ today).

Hi Jerome,

Let me clarify my question. I really like the new batch of compact cameras. The Canon and Nikon DSLR's are so heavy to lug around all day. My experience is limited to just two brands, Ricoh and Sony so I was wondering, overall, which brand offers a good range of prime AF lenses without breaking the bank, preferably APS C sized sensor.

Ricoh: I love the Ricoh GXR, solidly built, with it's 50 mm f 2.5 Macro lens and enclosed sensor unit. The pictures are on a par with full frame camera for most intents. However, the range of primes is limited to that 50 mm and a 28mm APS C units. Zooms are wonderful but have tiny sensors. One can use the M-mount adapter and leverage Leica lenses one owns, but then the focus is manual.

Sony: My experience with the Sony NEX 5N was a quick wonderful romance. The 18-55 zoom, (x1.5) was all I had but it was really practical for a New York "guerilla" shoot. The f 2.0 28mm Zeiss lens offered was just too expensive and has no image stabilization. The 16 mm, f 2.8, (equivalent to 24mm), was not in stock and that's the line up; rather limited! Of course, they have the 2X adapter and ultrawide and fisheye convertors, but these aren't primes. One can use the large heavy prime lenses from the Sony alpha DSLR with an adapter, but hardly practical for a compact system.

So I'm looking out for a fine system with compact AF lenses covering the 35mm equivalent focal lengths of 14-16mm to 120 mm at least.

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

Sony: My experience with the Sony NEX 5N was a quick wonderful romance. The 18-55 zoom, (x1.5) was all I had but it was really practical for a New York "guerilla" shoot. The f 2.0 28mm Zeiss lens offered was just too expensive and has no image stabilization. The 16 mm, f 2.8, (equivalent to 24mm), was not in stock and that's the line up; rather limited! Of course, they have the 2X adapter and ultrawide and fisheye convertors, but these aren't primes. One can use the large heavy prime lenses from the Sony alpha DSLR with an adapter, but hardly practical for a compact system.

There is no 2x adapter that I know of and the Zeiss is a 24mm f/1.8 on the NEX system. The 16mm f/2.8 pancake has poor corners and, depending on the camera, can vignette like crazy. It can produce great pictures, but is not an universal, sharp-everywhere, wide angle lens. So, for the NEX system you are limited to 28, 35, 50 and 75 35mm equivalents if you want to use primes, and possibly a 24mm equivalent if you can live with the poor corners of the pancake.

The real strength of the NEX system is not the lenses, but the NEX 7 camera with its viewfinder and 3-wheels setup system.

Quote:

So I'm looking out for a fine system with compact AF lenses covering the 35mm equivalent focal lengths of 14-16mm to 120 mm at least.

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.

I don't think it is available yet in the NEX mount, it is not AF and it is a fisheye, so I did not count it.

Quote:

Zeiss 24mm 1.8, 36mm equivalent, AF $999.99

Quote:

Zeiss 50mm 1.8 AF 75mm equivalent

The 50mm is not a Zeiss lens.

Quote:

where did you find your 28, 35 and 50 mm equivalent primes or are these more like poetic license designation in coverage?

"Poetic" license or inaccuracy of the scale for 35mm (I thought about the 24mm, which has a coverage of 36mm and not 35mm) and for 50mm (I thought about the two 30mm lenses, which have a coverage of 45mm). The designation "28mm" was thought for the Sigma 19mm lens, which has a coverage of 28,5mm.

I don't think it is available yet in the NEX mount, it is not AF and it is a fisheye, so I did not count it.

It's availble at B&H here right now for $299. It is indeed MF but it is easily set by MF and the DOF makes this simple to get subjects sharp. At that price, it's worth considering. Against that is the bulk and that Sony has wide angle adapters and also a Fisheye adapter matched for their own lenses.

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.